Abstract
This paper explores some features of the epistemic environment in social media and online communication. We argue that digital environments differ from offline ones in at least two ways: (a) online environments are thoroughly structured and programmed. Every action is defined and limited by the underlying code created by the system’s developers, providing the tools users need to navigate the online space. In contrast, offline environments are open to chance and unpredictability, allowing for events and actions that the system has not predetermined; (b) every action is traced and used to evaluate levels of engagement with content and posts, with significant epistemic consequences. This creates a “dense” environment in which users are deeply entangled. In this regard, the concept of purely passive engagement is challenged, since activities such as just watching a video or reading a post can alter the epistemic landscape and promote specific content with which a person interacts. As a result, online social environments facilitate a variety of indirect communicative and epistemic activities across the network. Given this, the paper suggests that in such settings, attentional disengagement and avoidance should be considered a potential proactive way to modulate self-exposure. This strategy is aimed not only at protecting individuals from harmful content but also at actively shaping the information flow and knowledge structure within the environment. Managing one’s own attention can thus significantly influence how information is perceived and disseminated, essentially controlling the personal and collective epistemic environment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
On differences between online and offline communication in use by younger demographics, see Mikami and Szwedo 2018.
This does not imply that users are unable to engage in actions that platform developers would prefer to avoid, such as verbal abuse or defamation. Instead, it means that users can only act through the means that the platform has determined to be possible.
It should be noted that these dynamics differ for synchronous online communication platforms, such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams. They incorporate elements of the offline environment, including ambient sounds and physical occurrences captured during the interaction. Such hybrid environments possess unique characteristics and, consequently, distinct affordances that merit separate consideration (Arielli 2020).
For general discussion on agency, see the contributions in Ferrero (2022).
One objection might be that a maker or engineer who simply follows a blueprint for a watch without contributing to its innovation does not personally make any assertions through the watch. It could be argued instead that those who developed the watch mechanism or enhanced its design and functionality are the true assertors of the information it provides. This topic is too broad and complex to be addressed within the scope of this paper.
If we keep the idea that a watch generates assertions intended by its maker, checking a watch and telling another person the time is also a proxy communicative action: I am telling the time, but I am doing it by repeating what the watch’s maker intended to convey in the design of the watch’s mechanism.
“These platforms set up systems to optimize use, then chastise people for using them too well […] The line between legitimate strategic action to boost visibility and illegitimate is nebulous and shifts a lot” https://www.wired.com/story/platforms-gaming-algorithm/.
Attention could be therefore considered a case of “mental action” (Mele 1997).
“Gartner Predicts 50% of Consumers Will Significantly Limit Their Interactions with Social Media by 2025” (https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2023-12-14-gartner-predicts-fifty-percent-of-consumers-will-significantly-limit-their-interactions-with-social-media-by-2025). “Across social media only 19% of adults share news stories weekly, down from 26% in 2018. Publications like BuzzFeed News, which relied on social distribution, have perished” (“The End of the social network”, The Economist, Feb 1st 2024, https://www.economist.com/leaders/2024/02/01/the-end-of-the-social-network).
References
Arielli E (2018) Sharing as speech act. Versus 2:243–258
Arielli E (2020) Spheres of action. The technological shift of control. Img J 2(3):40–53
Arora C (2024) Proxy assertions and Agency: the case of machine-assertions, vol 37. Philosophy & Technology, p 15
Avalle M, Di Marco N, Etta G, Sangiorgio E, Alipour S, Bonetti A, Alvisi L, Scala A, Baronchelli A, Cinelli M, Quattrociocchi W (2024) Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time. Nature. 1–8
Bail CA, Argyle LP, Brown TW, Bumpus JP, Chen H, Hunzaker MBF, Lee J, Mann M, Merhout F, Volfovsky A (2018) Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. PNAS 11(37):9216–9221
Bostrom N (2011) Information hazards: a typology of potential Harms from Knowledge. Rev Contemp Philos 10:44–79
boyd D (2010) Social network sites as networked publics: affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: Papacharissi Z (ed) Networked self: identity, Community, and culture on Social Network Sites. Routledge, London, 39–58
Bucher T (2020) Nothing to disconnect from? Being singular plural in an age of machine learning. Media Cult Soc 42(4):610–617
Bucher T, Helmond A (2017) The affordances of social media platforms. In: Burgess J, Poell T, Marwick A (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. SAGE, London, 233–253
Carkner B (2024) The rhythm of the Algorithm: behavioural influences and TikTok users. Emerg Libr Inform Perspect 6(1):7–23
Chemero A (2003) An outline of a theory of affordances. Ecol Psychol 15(2003):181–195
Citton Y (2019) Attentional Agency is Environmental Agency. In: Doyle W, Roda C (eds) Communication in the era of attention scarcity. Palgrave Pivot
Clarke R (2014) Omissions: Agency, Metaphysics, and Responsibility. Oxford Academic
Clarke R (2022) Negative agency. In: Ferrero L (ed) The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Agency. Routledge, London, 59–67
De Seta G (2017) Trolling, and other problematic social media practices. In: Burgess J, Marwick A, Poell T (eds) The SAGE handbook of social media. SAGE, 390–411
Dijck JV (2014) Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance Soc 12:197–208
Enç B (2003) How we act: causes, reasons, and intentions. Oxford University Press
Fairweather A, Montemayor C (2017) Knowledge, dexterity, and attention: a theory of Epistemic Agency. Cambridge University Press
Ferrero L (2022) The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Agency. Routledge
Floridi L (ed) (2015) The Onlife Manifesto: being human in a Hyperconnected era. Springer
Gibson JJ (1979) The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Psychology
Goldman A (1970) A theory of human action. Prentice-Hall
James C (2023) We aren’t posting on Social Media as much Anymore. Will we ever? Excessive ads, bots and misinformation have sucked the fun out of sharing publicly, users say. Wall Str J Dec 23, https://www.wsj.com/tech/personal-tech/social-media-nobody-posting-f6c2fd3e
Jorge A, Agai M, Dias P, Martinho LC-V (2023) Growing out of overconnection: the process of dis/connecting among Norwegian and Portuguese teenagers. New Media Soc, 1–17
Kaun A (2021) Ways of seeing digital disconnection: a negative sociology of digital culture. Convergence 27(6):1571–1583
Kirk L (2014) Proxy Agency in collective action. NOUS 48(1):75–105
Kirk L (2020) Proxy assertion. In: Goldberg S (ed) Oxford Handbook of Assertion. Oxford University Press, 307–326
Korsgaard CM (2014) The Normative Constitution of Agency, in Manuel Vargas, and Gideon Yaffe (eds), Rational and Social Agency: The Philosophy of Michael Bratman. Oxford Academic
Kroes P, Verbeek PP (2014) The moral status of technical artefacts. Springer
Kunstman A, Miyake E (2022) Paradoxes of Digital Disengagement: in search of the opt-out Button. University of Westminster
Kuntsman A, Miyake E (2019) The paradox and continuum of digital disengagement: denaturalising digital sociality and technological connectivity. Media Cult Soc 41(6):901–913
Lieberman A, Schroeder J (2020) Two social lives: how differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes. Curr Opin Psychol Feb 31:16–21
Light B (2014) Disconnecting with Social networking sites. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
MacCormick N (1998) Norms, institutions, and institutional facts. Law Philos 17:301–345
Majchrzak A, Faraj S, Kane GC, Azad B (2013) The contradictory influence of social media affordances on online knowledge sharing. J Computer-Mediated Communication 19(1):1, 38–55
Mallory F (2023) Fictionalism about Chatbots, Ergo an Open Access. J Philos 10:38
Marsili N (2021) Retweeting: its linguistic and epistemic value. Synthese 198:10457–10483
Matz SC, Appel RE, Kosinski M (2020) Privacy in the age of psychological targeting. Curr Opin Psychol 31:116–121
McGoey L (2019) The unknowers: how strategic ignorance rules the World. Zed Books, London
Mele AR (1997) Agency and mental action. Noûs 31:231–249
Mikami AY, Szwedo DE (2018) Social networking in online and offline contexts. In: Levesque RJR (ed) Encyclopedia of adolescence. Springer, Cham
Moe H, Madsen OJ (2021) Understanding digital disconnection beyond media studies. Convergence 27(6):1584–1598
Nassen LM, Vandebosch H, Poels K, Karsay K (2023) Opt-out, abstain, unplug. A systematic review of the voluntary digital disconnection literature. Telematics Inform 81:101980
Nguyen CT (2020) Echo chambers and epistemic bubbles. Episteme 17(2):141–161
Nguyen CT (2021) How Twitter Gamifies Communication, in Jennifer Lackey (ed.), Applied Epistemology, Oxford Academic
Nijsingh N (2016) Consent to epistemic interventions: a contribution to the debate on the right (not) to know. Med Health Care Philos 19(1):103–110
Offerdal TS, Øyvind I, Sine NJ, Rasmussen J (2022) We do not have any further Info to add, unfortunately – strategic disengagement on Public Health Facebook Pages. Int J Strategic Communication 16(3):499–515
Pariser E (2011) The Filter Bubble. Penguin
Peels R (2023) Ignorance: a philosophical study. Oxford University Press, New York
Portwood-Stacer L (2013) Media refusal and conspicuous non-consumption: the performative and political dimensions of Facebook abstention. New Media Soc 15(7):1041–1057
Rietveld E (2008) Situated normativity: the normative aspect of embodied cognition in unreflective action. Mind 117(468):973–1001
Rogers R, Niederer S (2020) The politics of Social Media Manipulation. Amsterdam University, Amsterdam
Ronzhyn A, Cardenal AS, Batlle Rubio A (2023) Defining affordances in social media research: a literature review. New Media Soc 25(11):3165–3188
Rosen G, Lyons T (2019) Remove, reduce, inform: new steps to manage problematic content. Meta, about.fb.com/news/2019/04/remove-reduce-inform-new-steps/
Ryan S (2018) Epistemic Environmentalism. J Philosophical Res 43:97–112
Ryan S (2021) State Epistemic Environmentalism. In: Karyn L, Lai (eds) Knowers and Knowledge in East-West Philosophy: Epistemology Extended. Springer Nature
Searle J (1989) How performatives work. Linguist Philos 12:5, 535–558
Silver K (2018) Omissions as events and actions. J Am Philosophical Association 4(1):33–48
Sloman S, Fernbach P (2017) The knowledge illusion: why we never think alone. Riverhead Books, New York
Sullivan E, Sondag M, Rutter I, Meulemans W, Cunningham S, Speckmann B, Alfano M (2020) Vulnerability in Social Epistemic Networks. Int J Philosophical Stud 28(5):731–753
Symons J, Abumusab S (2024) Social Agency for artifacts: Chatbots and the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. DISO 3:2
Syvertsen T (2017) Media Resistance. Protest, Dislike, Abstention. Palgrave Macmillan
Tanney J (200) Real rules. Synthese 171:499–507
Wegner DM (1995) A computer network model of human transactive memory. Soc Cogn 13(3):319–339
Withagen R, Harjo J, de Poel, Araújo D, Gert-Jan P (2012) Affordances can invite behavior: reconsidering the relationship between affordances and agency. New Ideas Psychol 30(2):250–258
Withagen R, Araújo D, Harjo J, de Poel (2017) Inviting affordances and agency. New Ideas Psychol 45:11–18
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Arielli, E. The Ecology of (dis-)Engagement in Digital Environments. Topoi (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10098-9
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-024-10098-9